We will soon know who will be our new president. The man who will, in theory, be at the helm of the country for the next four years at least. Possibly the next eight.
This is an important decision to make. I'm not going to launch into a partisan rant here, because the two folks running neck and neck (along with their running mates) are doing a good enough job of partisan politics.
Right, so what we're going to talk about now is voting. I got into a large discussion a couple weeks ago. Like, right before class started on a Tuesday afternoon. It was rather a lopsided argument, though, because, let's be honest, Webster University's student body is made up largely of Democrats, especially the farther you get from the business school. And both geographically and ideologically, you can't get further from the business school at Sverdrup than the English school in Pearson House. And it was lopsided because one girl said she was voting for McCain.
She got, to put it mildly, attacked. People actually started shouting at her. Nobody would let her talk. The teacher walked in and listened for a moment, and then interjected.
This particular teacher has not been politically vocal in the past, but that's not to say that as a student who has had her as a teacher before, I didn't have an inkling as to her political leanings. One of her best friends on the staff was, until he died this past summer, Art Sandler, who was very vocal against the war in Iraq and certain policies of the current administration. I've picked up some hints on her political leanings. But she interjected on behalf of the student who was unable to speak her piece.
The teacher asked, "Do you feel like you shouldn't have brought this up now? Because the rest of the class seems to be giving quite a display of disrespect." That shut everybody up.
That's when I asked, just generally, without a note of incredulity or anger in my voice, "So, what are your reasons for voting for McCain?"
It was the teacher that thanked me first. Then the girl explained that she had reviewed their tax plans. And she came to the conclusion that Obama's tax plan falls short, while McCain's has merits. At least, in her opinion. She said that on other issues, she actually agreed more with Obama, such as education, abortion/gay marriage (those get lumped together now under the Conservative "family values" political football that has replaced the rather one-dimensional "Roe v. Wade" political football), and foreign policy. But, she argued, the economy is the most important issue in this election. She also said that she doesn't agree with the perception that Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans.
I have to say that I was ready to let the issue rest. Because, let's face it, this person researched the candidates' stances on the issues that were important to her, and she came to a conclusion that she felt comfortable with. Which is exactly how I came to my decision. Which is exactly how everybody should make their decision.
But, of course, most of the other people in the class were not ready to let this girl get away with disagreeing with them.
Look: I don't really care who you vote for. I kind of care how you vote; do your research. Don't go to the politician's websites...go to factcheck.org, or other reputable non-partisan sources to find out for yourself. And if you do not have time, because I know not everybody does have time (well, first off, stop reading my blog and check now, and come back to my blog after the election), then do your best with the information you have.
Back to the point; just...get out and vote. It's your right and privelege. I won't say duty, because, well...I think I'd rather somebody not vote if they're not educated on the issues. It's a right and a privelege. The end.
Fun facts of the day:
Obama is NOT a Muslim, or the Anti-Christ.
Neither is McCain.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Monday, October 20, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
I know it's been two weeks, but...
I need your help. Please follow this link and sign the petition to impeach President Bush. You don't have to agree with everthing Dennis Kucinich stands for, but think hard about what the current administration has done in the seven years they've been in place. The abuses of executive power, the lack of respect for the constitution. Do it. And then I promise more diligent blogging.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Fox News Declares Rachel Ray a Terrorist...?
Okay, so I read this story about a Rachel Ray/Dunkin Donuts iced coffee ad on MSN yesterday, and at first I couldn't stop laughing. I mean, leave it to a Fox News political pundit to coin a term like "Hate Coture." I mean, I've seen this type of scarf on many many people, not just radical Islamic Terrorists.
In fact, I would guess that the majority of the people who wears scarves like this are not radical Muslim Terrorists, and of the Mulsim people who wear them, I would bet dollars to donuts that the majority of them are in fact peaceful people of faith, and not Radical Terrorists who hate America. So to say that Rachel Ray (or, to look at some other people mentioned in the article, Colin Farrel, Kanye West and Howard Dean) is a terrorist simply for wearing it is like saying anybody who wears shiny black knee-high boots is a Nazi, or anybody who uses white sheets for anything is a member of the KKK. Sure, some people who wear black boots might sympathize with the Nazi party. Some KKK members likely sleep on white sheets as well as wear them around. And some terrorists wear these scarves. But, seriously? Are we going to condemn everybody? Maybe we should scour the internet for pictures of Michelle Malkin and find out some of her fashion mistakes. Ten bucks to the first person who can link her to North Korea!
But I think the best part of this story is that on the MSN site, the screen capture from the ad in question shows Rachel Ray holding the coffee (like a microphone?) in her left hand while gesticulating, forefinger raised, with her right hand. You will see why that's funny below:
And now why it's funny:
In fact, I would guess that the majority of the people who wears scarves like this are not radical Muslim Terrorists, and of the Mulsim people who wear them, I would bet dollars to donuts that the majority of them are in fact peaceful people of faith, and not Radical Terrorists who hate America. So to say that Rachel Ray (or, to look at some other people mentioned in the article, Colin Farrel, Kanye West and Howard Dean) is a terrorist simply for wearing it is like saying anybody who wears shiny black knee-high boots is a Nazi, or anybody who uses white sheets for anything is a member of the KKK. Sure, some people who wear black boots might sympathize with the Nazi party. Some KKK members likely sleep on white sheets as well as wear them around. And some terrorists wear these scarves. But, seriously? Are we going to condemn everybody? Maybe we should scour the internet for pictures of Michelle Malkin and find out some of her fashion mistakes. Ten bucks to the first person who can link her to North Korea!
But I think the best part of this story is that on the MSN site, the screen capture from the ad in question shows Rachel Ray holding the coffee (like a microphone?) in her left hand while gesticulating, forefinger raised, with her right hand. You will see why that's funny below:
And now why it's funny:
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Giving Up the...Golf?
I know I'm about a week behind on this story, but I wanted to give everybody a chance to catch the video before it got bumped down.
So, according to this story on NPR's All Things Considered, our Commander-in-Chimp, the Great Divider (I could keep going but I won't) has made the tremendously heart-warming and self-punishing sacrifice of giving up playing golf in solidarity with the troops fighting in Iraq. According to the original interview with Mike Allen at Politico.com, Bush stated, "I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.” Hmm...
Geez, you know, Mr. President, if playing golf sends the wrong signal, what about taking time off from your schedule as President of the United States of America to go down to your Crawford Ranch and relax? Is that the right signal? I mean, if we're worried about what it looks like if you play golf...
I mean, geez, if you really wanted to show solidarity with the troops, shouldn't you, I don't know, go overseas and eat only C-rations? Or shouldn't you spend fourteen months away from your friends, your wife, your daughters? At the very least, shouldn't you quit your job to put your life in danger, defending freedom while bullets are being fired at you? I mean...if you want to do that last one, I'll bet your approval rating would shoot straight up.
While we're showing solidarity to our troops by giving up golf, why don't we just show solidarity with the millions of workers who have lost their jobs due to the failing economy by giving up watching movies in whatever gigantic room with a large screen exists in the White House (and don't say there is no such room, there's gotta be)? How about, as a show of solidarity to everybody who struggles to fill the gas tanks on their Honda Civics, you give up premium gasoline for the presidential stretch SUV? How about, in support of the uninsured people in this country, you give up serving Dom Perignon at State Dinners? Yeah. This could be the start of a whole new President Bush...
Seriously. The president is giving up golf. What an inspiration.
Actually, though, this is quite a strategy for setting up a lasting legacy that might illuminate him in a positive light. Imagine that I am president (as a Democrat, or at the very least not as a Republican). Let's pretend that I am elected and war erupts, and American men and women are fighting and dying overseas. That is not to say that if I were elected, I would run is into a war lickety split, but, you know, sometimes, war is unavoidable and even necessary (I am thinking of something on the scale and magnitude of World War II, not, you know, Operation Mission Re-Accomplished Again for the Third Time, or whatever we're calling it now). So imagine I am elected and we get involved in a WWII-style conflict, and I don't play golf, but this is a hypothetical universe, so in this hypothetical situation, I am a golfer. And in this particular hypothetical situation, in which I am a golfer and president during a time of unnavoidable global conflict on the scale of WWII, complete with a Nazi-like enemy who is seemingly unstoppable and ruthless and all of that and only our perseverence and sense that what we are doing is not an offense but purely a defense for all free peoples...wait, I got lost somewhere.
Imagine, if you will, that in several years' time, I am president. The country gets attacked and it hearkens back to Pearl Harbor, there is a global conflict that we now find ourselves entering to defend our freedom. Also, I am a golfer. Here we are in this war, and I go out and play golf. My Republican detractors can look back on the Legacy of Bush the Second and say, "Aha! President Rauscher is not showing solidarity with the troops! Why, the Great George W. Bush gave up golf when he took the country to war!" See? So it is a good move for the Bush administration, at least as far as long-term PR is concerned.
But what signal does this really send? Not to our country, but to our enemies...and yes, I will admit that we have enemies. They exist. We may have created some of them through our country's ridiculous and unforgivable foreign policy, but still they exist and wish to disrupt our every day lives. All they will see is that they have disrupted the life of the president to the point where he no longer plays the silly Imperialist Capitalist Infidel Great Satan game of golf. It's a victory for them, and it's a bit demoralizing on the home front.
Look, I'm not saying that President Bush shouldn't have given up golf, but to think that this gesture is a real sacrifice, to even imply that it's even remotely equal to the sacrifice of our men and women who are putting their lives on the line? No. Absolutely not, Mr. President. My opinion of you would have at the very least stayed the same if you had never given up golf. Now, you've only succeeded in lowering it.
So, according to this story on NPR's All Things Considered, our Commander-in-Chimp, the Great Divider (I could keep going but I won't) has made the tremendously heart-warming and self-punishing sacrifice of giving up playing golf in solidarity with the troops fighting in Iraq. According to the original interview with Mike Allen at Politico.com, Bush stated, "I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.” Hmm...
Geez, you know, Mr. President, if playing golf sends the wrong signal, what about taking time off from your schedule as President of the United States of America to go down to your Crawford Ranch and relax? Is that the right signal? I mean, if we're worried about what it looks like if you play golf...
I mean, geez, if you really wanted to show solidarity with the troops, shouldn't you, I don't know, go overseas and eat only C-rations? Or shouldn't you spend fourteen months away from your friends, your wife, your daughters? At the very least, shouldn't you quit your job to put your life in danger, defending freedom while bullets are being fired at you? I mean...if you want to do that last one, I'll bet your approval rating would shoot straight up.
While we're showing solidarity to our troops by giving up golf, why don't we just show solidarity with the millions of workers who have lost their jobs due to the failing economy by giving up watching movies in whatever gigantic room with a large screen exists in the White House (and don't say there is no such room, there's gotta be)? How about, as a show of solidarity to everybody who struggles to fill the gas tanks on their Honda Civics, you give up premium gasoline for the presidential stretch SUV? How about, in support of the uninsured people in this country, you give up serving Dom Perignon at State Dinners? Yeah. This could be the start of a whole new President Bush...
Seriously. The president is giving up golf. What an inspiration.
Actually, though, this is quite a strategy for setting up a lasting legacy that might illuminate him in a positive light. Imagine that I am president (as a Democrat, or at the very least not as a Republican). Let's pretend that I am elected and war erupts, and American men and women are fighting and dying overseas. That is not to say that if I were elected, I would run is into a war lickety split, but, you know, sometimes, war is unavoidable and even necessary (I am thinking of something on the scale and magnitude of World War II, not, you know, Operation Mission Re-Accomplished Again for the Third Time, or whatever we're calling it now). So imagine I am elected and we get involved in a WWII-style conflict, and I don't play golf, but this is a hypothetical universe, so in this hypothetical situation, I am a golfer. And in this particular hypothetical situation, in which I am a golfer and president during a time of unnavoidable global conflict on the scale of WWII, complete with a Nazi-like enemy who is seemingly unstoppable and ruthless and all of that and only our perseverence and sense that what we are doing is not an offense but purely a defense for all free peoples...wait, I got lost somewhere.
Imagine, if you will, that in several years' time, I am president. The country gets attacked and it hearkens back to Pearl Harbor, there is a global conflict that we now find ourselves entering to defend our freedom. Also, I am a golfer. Here we are in this war, and I go out and play golf. My Republican detractors can look back on the Legacy of Bush the Second and say, "Aha! President Rauscher is not showing solidarity with the troops! Why, the Great George W. Bush gave up golf when he took the country to war!" See? So it is a good move for the Bush administration, at least as far as long-term PR is concerned.
But what signal does this really send? Not to our country, but to our enemies...and yes, I will admit that we have enemies. They exist. We may have created some of them through our country's ridiculous and unforgivable foreign policy, but still they exist and wish to disrupt our every day lives. All they will see is that they have disrupted the life of the president to the point where he no longer plays the silly Imperialist Capitalist Infidel Great Satan game of golf. It's a victory for them, and it's a bit demoralizing on the home front.
Look, I'm not saying that President Bush shouldn't have given up golf, but to think that this gesture is a real sacrifice, to even imply that it's even remotely equal to the sacrifice of our men and women who are putting their lives on the line? No. Absolutely not, Mr. President. My opinion of you would have at the very least stayed the same if you had never given up golf. Now, you've only succeeded in lowering it.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Year End Round-Up...Coming Soon...
Well, it's been my most prolific year yet on the blog, which is not quite the accomplishment it sounds like when you consider the gaping month long + black holes of blogging, and the fact that my blog is only a little under two years old. But, the record stands for me to defeat next year. There we have it.
But that's not really what this is about. This is about something else entirely. Brace yourself, Kathy...it's a political rant on a Friday. I know, I know...those are supposed to happen on Mondays or Wednesdays, Fridays are supposed to be for free writing. But, well, such is life.
I've noticed a lot of hooplah over a woman's ability to govern. Or a black person's ability to govern. Whatever. This post has been sparked by a recent feature I've noticed on facebook. They present you with a topic on which you can choose a stance, and you can leave a reason for your stance. For instance, Should Waterboarding be allowed as a means to extract information from terror suspects (short answer no, long answer is also no but involves a rather lengthy explanation, which is a tangent I do not want to go off on). Or...Should a politician's religious beliefs play a major part in their decision making process? Well, I mean, I suppose so, yes...but I think morals and ethics are more important, but since most religions do put a heavy emphasis on ethical treatment of your fellow human and stromg moral convictions, then, yes. Fine. Whatever.
But most recently, I saw one that asked the following: Do you think a woman can be as effective a president as a man?
Duh! This is just about the stupidest question I've ever heard! This is like asking if a silver car gets better mileage than a white car. Yes, I suppose it could. Or not. The question should really be does a Silver Toyota Yaris get better mileage than a white Chevy Suburban. Yes. Yes it can.
The point is, you can't make a generalization like that! I know that the question is really a thinly veiled attempt at asking if Hilary could be as effective as...well, I guess there's no real implication as to who the male is. As Hilary is the most successful female politician to vie for the highest political office in the country to date, though, the question implies that she is the woman. And so some people may read that question but read it as "Do you think Hilary Clinton can be as effective a president as George W. Bush?" To which the answer for me is, yes, but so could an untrained monkey. Could she make as effective a president as Mitt Romney? Yes. Better, even. Could she make as effective a president as Dennis Kucinich? Well, I'm not saying I have a man crush on Dennis Kucinich like Jerry does, but I'd say no, Dennis would be more effective. Not because he's a man and she's a woman, but because for the America I want to see, he's got a better vision.
Be wary, dear readers. There will be a lot of this in the upcoming months. Can a Black Man run the Country? Can a Mormon hold the highest office? Should a Woman be put in the position of Commander in Chief? Is America ready for a crossdressing Supreme Court Justice? Do we want Bill Clinton as the very first "First Husband?" Can you imagine him in the parlor with Mrs. Gordon Brown and Madame Sarkozy while Hilary, Gordon and Nicholas discuss NATO plans in the oval office? That would be hilarious, actually. Sure, a Hobbit can save Middle Earth and become a Senator and marry a supermodel who is way out of his league (and two feet taller), but can he be President?
Personally, I think we should consider the following when choosing our next leader: How funny can the editorial cartoonists draw them? Clearly, a short man with big ears always has a lot of hilarious potential, moreso than a former Mayor who faints or a lethargic actor or a young, charismatic junior senator. I mean...come on!
But that's not really what this is about. This is about something else entirely. Brace yourself, Kathy...it's a political rant on a Friday. I know, I know...those are supposed to happen on Mondays or Wednesdays, Fridays are supposed to be for free writing. But, well, such is life.
I've noticed a lot of hooplah over a woman's ability to govern. Or a black person's ability to govern. Whatever. This post has been sparked by a recent feature I've noticed on facebook. They present you with a topic on which you can choose a stance, and you can leave a reason for your stance. For instance, Should Waterboarding be allowed as a means to extract information from terror suspects (short answer no, long answer is also no but involves a rather lengthy explanation, which is a tangent I do not want to go off on). Or...Should a politician's religious beliefs play a major part in their decision making process? Well, I mean, I suppose so, yes...but I think morals and ethics are more important, but since most religions do put a heavy emphasis on ethical treatment of your fellow human and stromg moral convictions, then, yes. Fine. Whatever.
But most recently, I saw one that asked the following: Do you think a woman can be as effective a president as a man?
Duh! This is just about the stupidest question I've ever heard! This is like asking if a silver car gets better mileage than a white car. Yes, I suppose it could. Or not. The question should really be does a Silver Toyota Yaris get better mileage than a white Chevy Suburban. Yes. Yes it can.
The point is, you can't make a generalization like that! I know that the question is really a thinly veiled attempt at asking if Hilary could be as effective as...well, I guess there's no real implication as to who the male is. As Hilary is the most successful female politician to vie for the highest political office in the country to date, though, the question implies that she is the woman. And so some people may read that question but read it as "Do you think Hilary Clinton can be as effective a president as George W. Bush?" To which the answer for me is, yes, but so could an untrained monkey. Could she make as effective a president as Mitt Romney? Yes. Better, even. Could she make as effective a president as Dennis Kucinich? Well, I'm not saying I have a man crush on Dennis Kucinich like Jerry does, but I'd say no, Dennis would be more effective. Not because he's a man and she's a woman, but because for the America I want to see, he's got a better vision.
Be wary, dear readers. There will be a lot of this in the upcoming months. Can a Black Man run the Country? Can a Mormon hold the highest office? Should a Woman be put in the position of Commander in Chief? Is America ready for a crossdressing Supreme Court Justice? Do we want Bill Clinton as the very first "First Husband?" Can you imagine him in the parlor with Mrs. Gordon Brown and Madame Sarkozy while Hilary, Gordon and Nicholas discuss NATO plans in the oval office? That would be hilarious, actually. Sure, a Hobbit can save Middle Earth and become a Senator and marry a supermodel who is way out of his league (and two feet taller), but can he be President?
Personally, I think we should consider the following when choosing our next leader: How funny can the editorial cartoonists draw them? Clearly, a short man with big ears always has a lot of hilarious potential, moreso than a former Mayor who faints or a lethargic actor or a young, charismatic junior senator. I mean...come on!
Monday, October 15, 2007
Fall Break = Blogapalooza!
Alright, my few and faithfuls, I apologize for the long silence interspersed with sporadic bursts of incoherent blogobabble. But no more! Um, at least, not for, uh, this week...
Because, my friends, this is one of those few weeks between August and May when my obligations are fewer, my responsibilities slacken, my free time becomes recognizable as both freedom and timeliness. Yes, my comrades in arms, it's...
FALL BREAK!!
What does this mean for you, my reader? Well, to start, it means you get to actually read something fresh for the first time since October 4th. And it also means a week in blogging that will live forever in tales, songs, poetry, and Internet folkdom. I will blog every day starting today, Monday, October 15th, through Sunday, October 21st. That's right! Just like a farmer's market, it's pulled right from the field and delivered ripe for you. Just like a fish market on the wharf in Maine, it's coming fresh off the boat and still wriggling until I chop it's head off and wrap it up for you. Just like Radiohead's approach to each and every album...we're talking fresh!
A preview, you demand? Well, who am I to withhold such a gem. Especially because there are those amongst you (the naysayers, the doomsday prophets, the skeptics, the cynics, the Libertarians perhaps?) who are reading this and laughing under your breath. "Sure, Elliot...right. You'll blog every day for a week. Yup. And you'll also get on your bicycle and ride it more often, too. And your cat will be voted sweetest cat of the year. And the Cardinals will win the world series this year. And pink elephants exist. And pigs fly on Tuesdays and odd dated Thursdays." Well...okay, my track record runs against me, but this is for reals, yo!
To start, there's this blog, today. Tomorrow, get ready for a super de duper Tuesday Excerpt Extravaganza! Wednesday, look for a well thought piece of politics emanating from this writer's fingertips to your browser! Thursday, get ready for an off-the-wall posting you may be talking about until Friday morning! And speaking of Friday, start firing up your creative juices now, because I am reinstating Free Write Fridays for this week only (and possibly again in the future, but for sure it's happening this week)! Will it be a play? Will it be a short story? Will it be about a guy with a thing? Will it be about a thing with a guy? Will it be about a girl with a thing for a guy? Will it be about a guy with a girl for a thing? Or about a thing with an eye for a guy with a thing for a girl with a thing for the thing? Or will it be even more perplexing, exhaustive, time-consuming, and mind bending than all previous Free Write Fridays put together? Tune in Friday! And don't forget to make suggestions! (Go ahead and start now!)
Saturday, I will revisit my "Your Questions, Answered!" feature (a week or two late to be sure) and on Sunday, a quiet reflection on Fall Break and how it compares to it's cooler Varsity-Captain-of-Every-Sport older brother, Spring Break.
Get ready!
Okay, to start the week off, I just have a few things to say.
You need to hobble on over to my links section and read Annie's blog. This fellow WGHS Class of 2001 member and Webster University Alumna is clever, insightful, hilarious, and also both gorgeous and adorable. I have been reading her blog and, to be honest, that is part of the reason I have not blogged myself in a while. You know how sometimes, you want to say something about a topic, and bam! All of a sudden, somebody says it better themselves? Well, that's Annie. And for the record, she and I have been friends for several years, but even if we didn't know each other (and I had found her blog) I would check it all the time. It's just that good.
And speaking of people saying what you wanted to say better than you could have said it, and also speaking of Annie (read her post for 10/15/07 "If You Want to Drive a Hummer, Join the Army), I would just like to talk about downtown Clayton, Missouri for a moment.
Clayton is a place where you are not judged merely by the car you drive, but also by how you drive it, and mainly by how you park it. Me? I drive a 2002 VW Jetta, which is a fairly small car. I yield to pedestrians. Often, if I am parked in the metered lot in front of the County offices where the Recorder of Deeds and Collector of Revenue are located, and somebody is desperately searching for a parking spot, I will wave to that person in their vehicle and point to my car. This has been met with a very gracious attitude for all concerned, at least at first. And most of the time, it continues with that (with maybe a little bit of a hardening when the person who takes my vacated parking spot sees how little time I've left on the meter, but I have become such a good judge of knowing just how much time it will take me to do a specific deed search that I have almost gotten meter-feeding down to a science). However, every once in a while this gracious person will be well placed to take my spot, only to be edged out at the last second because I pointed my car in the perfect direction to cut them off and leave my spot open to a spot-sharker from the other side of me. Now, one or two times I have caught this before it happened, and have either pointed my car in the direction to block the offender and allow my nameless parking-lot friend access to my spot or (as I did once last week) I suddenly "remember" something I forgot and pull back into my spot and get out, ready to feed the meter...the offender will invariably speed off and then I will flag down the original person and quietly reassure them with hand gestures that this is their parking spot and nobody else's. Now, nobody has ever done this for me, but that's okay. Parking in Clayton is, after all, a dog-eat-dog world, as is evidenced by the number of times I have sat with my blinker on, waiting seemingly interminable minutes while somebody who has just gotten into their car starts it, gets settled, changes CDs, makes a phone call, adjusts their mirrors, rolls down their windows and whatever else they may be doing, only to be blocked out by the way they reverse and then to subsequently lose the spot to somebody who just drove up in the last three seconds...and it is invariably a white pick-up truck with a cover over the truck bed. I am not a mean person, but I have been tempted to spit on this truck or park next to it and haphazardly open my door into it. But spitting has only ever backfired on me, and opening my door into somebody else's car damages both of those cars. I once approached him after one of this parking-space usurping moments and he made snide comments, so in retaliation, I left a note like this under his windshield wiper:
"Excuse me - I was waiting for this spot. I clearly had my blinker on. There was a line of cars behind me patiently waiting for me to pull into this spot so they could continue their trek to find a parking spot. When you swooped in, you made me incredibly angry and made it useless for those people behind me to have waited. And then, when I very rightfully approached you about it, because it was clearly a space I had been waiting patiently for-as any of the people behind me or the person who left the spot before you took it could tell you-you decided to act like more of a jerk and tell me it was too bad I didn't get into the spot, because there was an hour and a half on the meter. You're an extremely terrible person, an asshole, and I sincerely hope that one day your bad driving habits land you in a ditch. Signed, The Silver Jetta."
Since there are numerous silver Jettas that park in and around this parking lot on a daily basis, I do not fear retaliation of any kind.
Now...crossing the street is another matter I wish to address. And most of the drivers in Clayton are very good about letting pedestrians cross, even if it does make them sit for longer than the standard three seconds at the stop sign (of course, it's St. Louis, so the tradition is to actually roll the stop sign, but...). However, last week I encountered somebody so rude, so terribly rude that I actually called them on it. You see, there was a crowd of people waiting at the crosswalk to cross from Memorial Square to the aforementioned parking lot (I was parked on the street and not in the lot, but I still had to cross towards the lot to get to my car. I like to park on the street. Nobody can open their car door into mine on the street), and this jerk in a black H2 came up to the intersection. Feeling assured that this person would stop, the other pedestrians and I began crossing. I was at the front of this intrepid troupe of foot-commuters (I also try to park as far away as I can to get some exercise), when the guy did not stop but rolled right through the stop sign, it was my head that would have been taken off by his enormous rear view mirror if I had not at the last moment realized his intentions. Seriously, my nose was inches from that mirror. So, he blew by and I stormed past the back of his car as he drove on, made myself visible in the driver's side rear view mirror and raised my arms in the classic "Hey, asshole, what the hell are you doing?" pose.
And he stopped. And so did all of the people crossing the street with me, and so did all the people crossing from the opposite side. And then I shouted loud enough for the asshole to hear me through his open window, "What?" I wanted him to get out. I wanted him to come up to me and size me up and realize he could kick the crap out of me. I wanted him to do that. I was ready to sacrifice myself to the beating so that his H2 would idle for five minutes and burn twelve gallons of gas. But that wasn't about to happen. He would have to have gotten out of his H2 and sized up a round two dozen people who were stopped in the crosswalk. So he peeled off without word, without gesture. His only response was the very timid and brief squeal of his tires as he slammed on the gas pedal...and in the process, probably burned those twelve gallons I wanted him to waste. On my way back to the office, I noticed a black H2 at the gas station across Clayton Road from my office. Was it him? Unfortunately, black H2s are a dime a dozen in Clayton, so probably not. But there it was, at a gas station. Pumping an entire Saudi oil field's daily production into its tank. And I felt good about the 34 mpg I was getting driving around the city.
So I took This Quiz a couple weeks ago to help me find out who I should vote for. It's a series of questions about issues such as health care, defense, education, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, etc., and you either agree, disagree, or don't care about the issue. Then you rate it in importance, in five steps I think, from not important to very important. At the end, it tells you who your candidate is. I got Kucinich, agreed with him on everything it seems, followed by Hilary, Edwards, Obama, and then on down the line. This works great, I mean, it's not scientific or anything, but it does match you with the candidate that correlates more or less to your political ideals. However, a lot of Americans seem to vote not on the issues as a whole, but on one or two issues. I also see a lot of political apatheticness in the ranks of people who want Bush out. The attitude, it seems, is "Anybody but Bush." This hardly seems like a good deal. Do we want Cheney? I think he'd make an even worse president. I mean...if everybody took the time to think about the issues and say, "This is what I believe to be important, and this is how I feel this should be approached..." and then sat down and really took a look at the people who are in the running for the job of President of the United States...I mean, that's president of the entire country people...then I don't know that we'd have as much support for Hilary and Obama. Look, it's not like they're not strong candidates. I happen to agree with Hilary's health care stance. I happen to think that Obama is a charismatic individual with great ideas. Politically, they are both very clever. Obama's already aired his dirty laundry, so he is immune to the "Did you inhale?" attacks that plagued Clinton (however briefly). But I think both of these candidates have a lot of appeal to the masses because of attributes not related to how effectively they could do the job. Lots of people are behind these candidates because it would be a first with either one of them; a black president? A female president? Huge strides in America, yes. I want to see both of these things happen. But before I put anyone in office, I am going to look not at their race, or their gender, or their religion, but at their ideas and their ideals. And their game plan. If Kucinich could garner some of that Rock Star persona that Obama has, or some of that instant recognition that Hilary has, that would be great. I would love to have everybody I know casting their vote for Kuninich. But even that's not true, because not everybody I know agrees with his political ideals. What am I trying to say here? Take the quiz. Answer as truthfully as you can. Find out more about whoever comes out on top. Do yourself that favor. I would rather you vote for the candidate who would build the America you want to see than voting for the one who is the most popular, even if that candidate is the one I am voting for.
That having all been said...vote Kucinich.
Because, my friends, this is one of those few weeks between August and May when my obligations are fewer, my responsibilities slacken, my free time becomes recognizable as both freedom and timeliness. Yes, my comrades in arms, it's...
FALL BREAK!!
What does this mean for you, my reader? Well, to start, it means you get to actually read something fresh for the first time since October 4th. And it also means a week in blogging that will live forever in tales, songs, poetry, and Internet folkdom. I will blog every day starting today, Monday, October 15th, through Sunday, October 21st. That's right! Just like a farmer's market, it's pulled right from the field and delivered ripe for you. Just like a fish market on the wharf in Maine, it's coming fresh off the boat and still wriggling until I chop it's head off and wrap it up for you. Just like Radiohead's approach to each and every album...we're talking fresh!
A preview, you demand? Well, who am I to withhold such a gem. Especially because there are those amongst you (the naysayers, the doomsday prophets, the skeptics, the cynics, the Libertarians perhaps?) who are reading this and laughing under your breath. "Sure, Elliot...right. You'll blog every day for a week. Yup. And you'll also get on your bicycle and ride it more often, too. And your cat will be voted sweetest cat of the year. And the Cardinals will win the world series this year. And pink elephants exist. And pigs fly on Tuesdays and odd dated Thursdays." Well...okay, my track record runs against me, but this is for reals, yo!
To start, there's this blog, today. Tomorrow, get ready for a super de duper Tuesday Excerpt Extravaganza! Wednesday, look for a well thought piece of politics emanating from this writer's fingertips to your browser! Thursday, get ready for an off-the-wall posting you may be talking about until Friday morning! And speaking of Friday, start firing up your creative juices now, because I am reinstating Free Write Fridays for this week only (and possibly again in the future, but for sure it's happening this week)! Will it be a play? Will it be a short story? Will it be about a guy with a thing? Will it be about a thing with a guy? Will it be about a girl with a thing for a guy? Will it be about a guy with a girl for a thing? Or about a thing with an eye for a guy with a thing for a girl with a thing for the thing? Or will it be even more perplexing, exhaustive, time-consuming, and mind bending than all previous Free Write Fridays put together? Tune in Friday! And don't forget to make suggestions! (Go ahead and start now!)
Saturday, I will revisit my "Your Questions, Answered!" feature (a week or two late to be sure) and on Sunday, a quiet reflection on Fall Break and how it compares to it's cooler Varsity-Captain-of-Every-Sport older brother, Spring Break.
Get ready!
Okay, to start the week off, I just have a few things to say.
You need to hobble on over to my links section and read Annie's blog. This fellow WGHS Class of 2001 member and Webster University Alumna is clever, insightful, hilarious, and also both gorgeous and adorable. I have been reading her blog and, to be honest, that is part of the reason I have not blogged myself in a while. You know how sometimes, you want to say something about a topic, and bam! All of a sudden, somebody says it better themselves? Well, that's Annie. And for the record, she and I have been friends for several years, but even if we didn't know each other (and I had found her blog) I would check it all the time. It's just that good.
And speaking of people saying what you wanted to say better than you could have said it, and also speaking of Annie (read her post for 10/15/07 "If You Want to Drive a Hummer, Join the Army), I would just like to talk about downtown Clayton, Missouri for a moment.
Clayton is a place where you are not judged merely by the car you drive, but also by how you drive it, and mainly by how you park it. Me? I drive a 2002 VW Jetta, which is a fairly small car. I yield to pedestrians. Often, if I am parked in the metered lot in front of the County offices where the Recorder of Deeds and Collector of Revenue are located, and somebody is desperately searching for a parking spot, I will wave to that person in their vehicle and point to my car. This has been met with a very gracious attitude for all concerned, at least at first. And most of the time, it continues with that (with maybe a little bit of a hardening when the person who takes my vacated parking spot sees how little time I've left on the meter, but I have become such a good judge of knowing just how much time it will take me to do a specific deed search that I have almost gotten meter-feeding down to a science). However, every once in a while this gracious person will be well placed to take my spot, only to be edged out at the last second because I pointed my car in the perfect direction to cut them off and leave my spot open to a spot-sharker from the other side of me. Now, one or two times I have caught this before it happened, and have either pointed my car in the direction to block the offender and allow my nameless parking-lot friend access to my spot or (as I did once last week) I suddenly "remember" something I forgot and pull back into my spot and get out, ready to feed the meter...the offender will invariably speed off and then I will flag down the original person and quietly reassure them with hand gestures that this is their parking spot and nobody else's. Now, nobody has ever done this for me, but that's okay. Parking in Clayton is, after all, a dog-eat-dog world, as is evidenced by the number of times I have sat with my blinker on, waiting seemingly interminable minutes while somebody who has just gotten into their car starts it, gets settled, changes CDs, makes a phone call, adjusts their mirrors, rolls down their windows and whatever else they may be doing, only to be blocked out by the way they reverse and then to subsequently lose the spot to somebody who just drove up in the last three seconds...and it is invariably a white pick-up truck with a cover over the truck bed. I am not a mean person, but I have been tempted to spit on this truck or park next to it and haphazardly open my door into it. But spitting has only ever backfired on me, and opening my door into somebody else's car damages both of those cars. I once approached him after one of this parking-space usurping moments and he made snide comments, so in retaliation, I left a note like this under his windshield wiper:
"Excuse me - I was waiting for this spot. I clearly had my blinker on. There was a line of cars behind me patiently waiting for me to pull into this spot so they could continue their trek to find a parking spot. When you swooped in, you made me incredibly angry and made it useless for those people behind me to have waited. And then, when I very rightfully approached you about it, because it was clearly a space I had been waiting patiently for-as any of the people behind me or the person who left the spot before you took it could tell you-you decided to act like more of a jerk and tell me it was too bad I didn't get into the spot, because there was an hour and a half on the meter. You're an extremely terrible person, an asshole, and I sincerely hope that one day your bad driving habits land you in a ditch. Signed, The Silver Jetta."
Since there are numerous silver Jettas that park in and around this parking lot on a daily basis, I do not fear retaliation of any kind.
Now...crossing the street is another matter I wish to address. And most of the drivers in Clayton are very good about letting pedestrians cross, even if it does make them sit for longer than the standard three seconds at the stop sign (of course, it's St. Louis, so the tradition is to actually roll the stop sign, but...). However, last week I encountered somebody so rude, so terribly rude that I actually called them on it. You see, there was a crowd of people waiting at the crosswalk to cross from Memorial Square to the aforementioned parking lot (I was parked on the street and not in the lot, but I still had to cross towards the lot to get to my car. I like to park on the street. Nobody can open their car door into mine on the street), and this jerk in a black H2 came up to the intersection. Feeling assured that this person would stop, the other pedestrians and I began crossing. I was at the front of this intrepid troupe of foot-commuters (I also try to park as far away as I can to get some exercise), when the guy did not stop but rolled right through the stop sign, it was my head that would have been taken off by his enormous rear view mirror if I had not at the last moment realized his intentions. Seriously, my nose was inches from that mirror. So, he blew by and I stormed past the back of his car as he drove on, made myself visible in the driver's side rear view mirror and raised my arms in the classic "Hey, asshole, what the hell are you doing?" pose.
And he stopped. And so did all of the people crossing the street with me, and so did all the people crossing from the opposite side. And then I shouted loud enough for the asshole to hear me through his open window, "What?" I wanted him to get out. I wanted him to come up to me and size me up and realize he could kick the crap out of me. I wanted him to do that. I was ready to sacrifice myself to the beating so that his H2 would idle for five minutes and burn twelve gallons of gas. But that wasn't about to happen. He would have to have gotten out of his H2 and sized up a round two dozen people who were stopped in the crosswalk. So he peeled off without word, without gesture. His only response was the very timid and brief squeal of his tires as he slammed on the gas pedal...and in the process, probably burned those twelve gallons I wanted him to waste. On my way back to the office, I noticed a black H2 at the gas station across Clayton Road from my office. Was it him? Unfortunately, black H2s are a dime a dozen in Clayton, so probably not. But there it was, at a gas station. Pumping an entire Saudi oil field's daily production into its tank. And I felt good about the 34 mpg I was getting driving around the city.
So I took This Quiz a couple weeks ago to help me find out who I should vote for. It's a series of questions about issues such as health care, defense, education, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, etc., and you either agree, disagree, or don't care about the issue. Then you rate it in importance, in five steps I think, from not important to very important. At the end, it tells you who your candidate is. I got Kucinich, agreed with him on everything it seems, followed by Hilary, Edwards, Obama, and then on down the line. This works great, I mean, it's not scientific or anything, but it does match you with the candidate that correlates more or less to your political ideals. However, a lot of Americans seem to vote not on the issues as a whole, but on one or two issues. I also see a lot of political apatheticness in the ranks of people who want Bush out. The attitude, it seems, is "Anybody but Bush." This hardly seems like a good deal. Do we want Cheney? I think he'd make an even worse president. I mean...if everybody took the time to think about the issues and say, "This is what I believe to be important, and this is how I feel this should be approached..." and then sat down and really took a look at the people who are in the running for the job of President of the United States...I mean, that's president of the entire country people...then I don't know that we'd have as much support for Hilary and Obama. Look, it's not like they're not strong candidates. I happen to agree with Hilary's health care stance. I happen to think that Obama is a charismatic individual with great ideas. Politically, they are both very clever. Obama's already aired his dirty laundry, so he is immune to the "Did you inhale?" attacks that plagued Clinton (however briefly). But I think both of these candidates have a lot of appeal to the masses because of attributes not related to how effectively they could do the job. Lots of people are behind these candidates because it would be a first with either one of them; a black president? A female president? Huge strides in America, yes. I want to see both of these things happen. But before I put anyone in office, I am going to look not at their race, or their gender, or their religion, but at their ideas and their ideals. And their game plan. If Kucinich could garner some of that Rock Star persona that Obama has, or some of that instant recognition that Hilary has, that would be great. I would love to have everybody I know casting their vote for Kuninich. But even that's not true, because not everybody I know agrees with his political ideals. What am I trying to say here? Take the quiz. Answer as truthfully as you can. Find out more about whoever comes out on top. Do yourself that favor. I would rather you vote for the candidate who would build the America you want to see than voting for the one who is the most popular, even if that candidate is the one I am voting for.
That having all been said...vote Kucinich.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Wednesday's Becoming My Political Rant Day...
But really, I only have a few things to say about it today.
I understand why President Bush's approval rating is so low. I get it. What I don't get is why Congress' approval rating has dipped so very low.
Okay, yes, I understand that number one priority for Congress (in the eyes of most of the people who voted them in) is to get the troops out of Iraq. I am all for this. I will not go into my views on that, because it's a separate issue.
The number one priority for Congress is to get on with the day-to-day business of being the Legislative Branch. This means passing laws and so forth. And yes, they did try to pass some bills for troop funding which included timetables for withdrawal. I guess a lot of people looked on the efforts of Congress on this front and decided that the Democrats tried twice and gave it up for good.
Look at the Bush Administration's record: Every time Congress and the White House disagree on an issue to such a degree as the War, they fight to a stalemate until Congress takes a scheduled break, then Bush uses his Executive Privelege to pass whatever law he wants in whatever terms he deems acceptable.
I agree that it would have been nice if Congress had sent identical withdrawal bills to the Oval Office until either Bush signed it or there were enough votes to overturn the veto, as Kucinich and John Edwards both wanted, but let's face it, Bush would have vetoed and vetoed and vetoed and then signed a bill into law while everybody in Congress was at home for 4th of July break. The truth is, the troops are there and as long as they are there, they do in fact need money. So Congress did what is supposed to happen in a Democracy; they compromised. Perhaps they bent a little more than Bush did in their original principles, but you can rest assured Bush would rather have signed a bill without benchmarks, and also a bill that funded the war until next year. What we got is not what anybody wanted, and so I understand, but people, it wasn't from lack of trying.
Anyway, when it comes time for the next bill, the Democrats may have better luck because it won't be just the Democrats. You may have noticed many Republicans breaking with the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, and therefore you may see many people in Congress calling for timetables, and for withdrawal.
I have not read the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report, but I have heard a fair amount about it on The Diane Rehm show and Talk of the Nation, and I understand that many Republicans who are now against the Bush policy are citing the Baker-Hamilton Report as the document to be looking at when reassessing the war policy.
There are many other issues tied to this, including troop support and how the term "war" is not truly applicable...just a funny little tid bit before I close out the rant. In real war, a soldier can not be held and charged with murder for killing a soldier on an opposing army. A soldier can be held accountable for war crimes if crimes were committed primarily against innocent civilians. However, in this "War" on Terror, there is no army opposing, thus the rules of "War" do not apply. A soldier fighting for the Taliban Government in 2002 can actually be convicted of murder if he killed American Military personnel, just as a man who murders a bank teller in Michigan can be convicted. But, again, that's the funny thing about this "War" on terror; where the murderer in Michigan and the soldier in Afganistan are no longer similar is when it comes to being imprisoned. By law in America, if you commit a crime you can only be held if found guilty, and you are guilty until proven innocent. But in war, if you are a soldier and are captured by the opposing side, that side can hold you indefinitely, until the war is ended and terms of peace are drawn up. So these soldiers we pick up we treat as criminals but we hold them as prisoners of war. It's ridiculous, because as there is no opposing nation, the war can never be ended and so these people will, in fact, be held indefinitely.
So yes, that's my little tid-bit, which was actually quite a bit longer than I intended it to be.
So, the Tour de France is back in action, and though I thought it would be hard to get into, I found myself this morning intently refreshing the live coverage on cyclingnews.com.
Let's go David Millar!
Alright, so, give me your Free Write Friday Suggestions and keep asking me questions as well.
I understand why President Bush's approval rating is so low. I get it. What I don't get is why Congress' approval rating has dipped so very low.
Okay, yes, I understand that number one priority for Congress (in the eyes of most of the people who voted them in) is to get the troops out of Iraq. I am all for this. I will not go into my views on that, because it's a separate issue.
The number one priority for Congress is to get on with the day-to-day business of being the Legislative Branch. This means passing laws and so forth. And yes, they did try to pass some bills for troop funding which included timetables for withdrawal. I guess a lot of people looked on the efforts of Congress on this front and decided that the Democrats tried twice and gave it up for good.
Look at the Bush Administration's record: Every time Congress and the White House disagree on an issue to such a degree as the War, they fight to a stalemate until Congress takes a scheduled break, then Bush uses his Executive Privelege to pass whatever law he wants in whatever terms he deems acceptable.
I agree that it would have been nice if Congress had sent identical withdrawal bills to the Oval Office until either Bush signed it or there were enough votes to overturn the veto, as Kucinich and John Edwards both wanted, but let's face it, Bush would have vetoed and vetoed and vetoed and then signed a bill into law while everybody in Congress was at home for 4th of July break. The truth is, the troops are there and as long as they are there, they do in fact need money. So Congress did what is supposed to happen in a Democracy; they compromised. Perhaps they bent a little more than Bush did in their original principles, but you can rest assured Bush would rather have signed a bill without benchmarks, and also a bill that funded the war until next year. What we got is not what anybody wanted, and so I understand, but people, it wasn't from lack of trying.
Anyway, when it comes time for the next bill, the Democrats may have better luck because it won't be just the Democrats. You may have noticed many Republicans breaking with the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, and therefore you may see many people in Congress calling for timetables, and for withdrawal.
I have not read the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report, but I have heard a fair amount about it on The Diane Rehm show and Talk of the Nation, and I understand that many Republicans who are now against the Bush policy are citing the Baker-Hamilton Report as the document to be looking at when reassessing the war policy.
There are many other issues tied to this, including troop support and how the term "war" is not truly applicable...just a funny little tid bit before I close out the rant. In real war, a soldier can not be held and charged with murder for killing a soldier on an opposing army. A soldier can be held accountable for war crimes if crimes were committed primarily against innocent civilians. However, in this "War" on Terror, there is no army opposing, thus the rules of "War" do not apply. A soldier fighting for the Taliban Government in 2002 can actually be convicted of murder if he killed American Military personnel, just as a man who murders a bank teller in Michigan can be convicted. But, again, that's the funny thing about this "War" on terror; where the murderer in Michigan and the soldier in Afganistan are no longer similar is when it comes to being imprisoned. By law in America, if you commit a crime you can only be held if found guilty, and you are guilty until proven innocent. But in war, if you are a soldier and are captured by the opposing side, that side can hold you indefinitely, until the war is ended and terms of peace are drawn up. So these soldiers we pick up we treat as criminals but we hold them as prisoners of war. It's ridiculous, because as there is no opposing nation, the war can never be ended and so these people will, in fact, be held indefinitely.
So yes, that's my little tid-bit, which was actually quite a bit longer than I intended it to be.
So, the Tour de France is back in action, and though I thought it would be hard to get into, I found myself this morning intently refreshing the live coverage on cyclingnews.com.
Let's go David Millar!
Alright, so, give me your Free Write Friday Suggestions and keep asking me questions as well.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Nap Time
Check out this story from NPR's Talk of the Nation. In addition to it being informative and entertaining, I am the first call-in when you click on the listen button.
So, not only am I published, I'm also on the radio.
I start my new job tomorrow, which means you will hear a little blurb about it when I do my Tuesday Excerpt tomorrow.
Alright, I said I would have a political rant on Wednesday, but I have another one that brewed today, while I was listing to The Diane Rehm Show. Dick Cheney acts with total immunity and it pisses me off.
He is claiming he does not have to file classified documents with the national archives in accordance with Executive order because, as Vice President and head of the Senate, he is not part of the Executive branch. But he is not exactly subject to the regulations and orders of the Legislative branch either because he isn't part of that branch either. So you have every official in Washington subject to Constitutional laws with the exception of Dick Cheney, who is essentially above the law. And of course, we can't exactly go to the Attorney General and ask his opinion, because he's busy with his own scandal.
I just have one question for political conservatives; how is this set of scandals ANY DIFFERENT from the scandals that rocked the Clinton Administration? I mean, hell, all the Bush administration has done is broken a few constitutional laws, gone to war based on unsound judgement, wasted billions on war spending with no end in sight while slashing money from domestic programs that need it, baselessly fire District Attorneys to replace them with agenda-friendly ones, but hey, at least the president never got a damn blow job from an intern. Sure, he and his administration are running the economy into the ground. Sure, the country's foreign policy has earned us an arrogant and easily hated reputation abroad. Sure, the ship's going down with the captain at the helm saying, "Freedom! 9/11! Freedom! Democracy! Mission Accomplished! Victory!" But at least the captain never fooled around behind his wife's back. I mean, nevermind that Clinton's blow job didn't cost over three thousand American Soldiers' lives.
I want to know how come more money was spent on the Monica Lewinsky investigation than has been spent on the Scooter Libby, Roberto Gonzales and Valerie Plame investigations combined?
I'm not saying that a married man getting a sexual favor from a woman who is not his wife is not a bad thing, because it is, and it doesn't set the best moral example for our nation, but I don't remember whole nations looking at that situation and saying, "What a horrible country."
Sorry for the political rant, but Dick Cheney really does not make me happy.
And no, I have not cited sources. So, for anybody who stumbles up to my blog and you want to take precious time to argue my figures, let me just say that I may be exaggerating with the amount of money spent on the investigations.I don't feel like looking it all up at the moment, I have to cook dinner. If you still want to point it out, and try and make me look like a Liberal Nutjob idiot, go ahead. I will not deny you the obvious pleasure you will derive from it. All I ask is that you come back and read one of my non-political blogs in exchange for the favor of me letting you anonynously call me a left-wing fool.
That is all.
So, not only am I published, I'm also on the radio.
I start my new job tomorrow, which means you will hear a little blurb about it when I do my Tuesday Excerpt tomorrow.
Alright, I said I would have a political rant on Wednesday, but I have another one that brewed today, while I was listing to The Diane Rehm Show. Dick Cheney acts with total immunity and it pisses me off.
He is claiming he does not have to file classified documents with the national archives in accordance with Executive order because, as Vice President and head of the Senate, he is not part of the Executive branch. But he is not exactly subject to the regulations and orders of the Legislative branch either because he isn't part of that branch either. So you have every official in Washington subject to Constitutional laws with the exception of Dick Cheney, who is essentially above the law. And of course, we can't exactly go to the Attorney General and ask his opinion, because he's busy with his own scandal.
I just have one question for political conservatives; how is this set of scandals ANY DIFFERENT from the scandals that rocked the Clinton Administration? I mean, hell, all the Bush administration has done is broken a few constitutional laws, gone to war based on unsound judgement, wasted billions on war spending with no end in sight while slashing money from domestic programs that need it, baselessly fire District Attorneys to replace them with agenda-friendly ones, but hey, at least the president never got a damn blow job from an intern. Sure, he and his administration are running the economy into the ground. Sure, the country's foreign policy has earned us an arrogant and easily hated reputation abroad. Sure, the ship's going down with the captain at the helm saying, "Freedom! 9/11! Freedom! Democracy! Mission Accomplished! Victory!" But at least the captain never fooled around behind his wife's back. I mean, nevermind that Clinton's blow job didn't cost over three thousand American Soldiers' lives.
I want to know how come more money was spent on the Monica Lewinsky investigation than has been spent on the Scooter Libby, Roberto Gonzales and Valerie Plame investigations combined?
I'm not saying that a married man getting a sexual favor from a woman who is not his wife is not a bad thing, because it is, and it doesn't set the best moral example for our nation, but I don't remember whole nations looking at that situation and saying, "What a horrible country."
Sorry for the political rant, but Dick Cheney really does not make me happy.
And no, I have not cited sources. So, for anybody who stumbles up to my blog and you want to take precious time to argue my figures, let me just say that I may be exaggerating with the amount of money spent on the investigations.I don't feel like looking it all up at the moment, I have to cook dinner. If you still want to point it out, and try and make me look like a Liberal Nutjob idiot, go ahead. I will not deny you the obvious pleasure you will derive from it. All I ask is that you come back and read one of my non-political blogs in exchange for the favor of me letting you anonynously call me a left-wing fool.
That is all.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
The Definition of Conservative, and I Am Surrounded By Writers
This first bit hearkens back to a conversation I had earlier today. I will spare you the details and specifics, but it ended with me getting a dictionary to prove a point.
Generally, I was once again derisively called a "Liberal," this time because I was angry that even though I put a recycling bin in the break room at work specifically for soda cans (complete with signs directing people to deposit their cans in the bin rather than in the trash), I was angrily complaining about the fact that people had thrown their soda cans in the trash along with their half-eaten lunches...but I'll let the half eaten lunches rest for now...and so, yes, somebody in the break room decided that they would share their view that recycling is worthless, and that only tree hugging liberals cared about it. This person said he did not care about the environment enough to walk the two feet out of his way to put his diet coke can in the recycling.
An argument ensued, because I asked him if his parents (not him, but his parents, because this person is still young and probably still has his political ideologies running parallel to his parents') were Republicans. He said, "Yes. Aren't yours?" Then he added, "No, probably not, since you're like 22 and trying to recycle." First off, I'm 24. But I let that slide. He added again, derisively, that I am a "Liberal." Yes. I am politically Liberal, with a capital L. Environmentally conservative, though, with a lowercase c. He argued I couldn't be conservative at all, since Conservatives know that recycling is for, in his words, "cry-babies." I went out to the floor to get a dictionary.
I was disappointed to find that the majority of the definitions for conservative now deal with a capital C. I guess that's just what the word has come to mean, however, I checked the root word, conserve, which gave me a much better footing for my argument with this person. Conserving is, of course, saving. Now, political Conservatives want to save things like the status quo, and money for them that's got. They want to preserve family values and so forth. It is clear to me from the actions of certain people that political Conservatism has little to do with saving money for the good of the majority, or lives, or the planet on which we live (and by that I mean to natural portion of it, not just the lump of rock, which it appears is how some people see the Earth). Now, I am a conservative with a lowercase c, in that I would like to save money, and lives, and resources. So, yes, I recycle. And I liked that the definition of conservative did say that the root word was conserve, the definition of which has not been infiltrated by a capital C.
Now, let me get down off of my soap box and get to some good ol' fashioned elliotisnotawriter bloggin.
I am not a master of the off-the-cuff comment. Most of the time, I've got a heavy supply of "oh yeah?"s and "Your Mom!"s. But every once in a great while, I come up with something. My father has a problem with his jaw at the moment, and it's been a recurring problem for a few years. He has trouble opening his mouth all the way and eating hard foods, so a few years ago his doctor suggested that when it flares up (like it is doing now), he should put himself on a diet of soft foods. Foods, as the doctor said, "Like pie." So, it's dad's pie diet, as we like to call it. "Back on the pie diet?" "Yeah. It's pretty sweet." No pun intended, really, because remember that there is more than just fruit pies; there's things like chicken-pot pie and quiche is considered a pie. But, so, yes, he is back on his pie diet. And this evening, as we sat in the living room at my parents' house, keeping them company, he made a comment suggesting he had made a mistake several years in his past. "I'm not saying it was fair, but I obviously did something wrong." It was quiet for a second, and I said, "So, back on the pie diet. Tell me, how's that humble pie tasting?"
Score one for me. Of course, as creative as everybody seems to be in my family, I was soon outdone by my mother's lament. I was in the middle of telling the recycling story, when my mother croaked in a voice of desperation, "I just don't think I can take it." When questioned what it was she couldn't take, she responded, "There isn't any cake in the house."
My dad and I, in order to stop laughing so uncontrollably, went to the grocery store to buy cheese cake. Behold the power of words!
But it's not just me and my mother who can spontaneously compose something worthy of going into print; my father has been writing his life story for years, and just yesterday gave me a suggestion for free write Fridays (that I hope he posts on here so you can all see it, otherwise I'll look like an enormous tease). My wife, as you have seen, can come up with an idea that's unique and full of potential, but there is one thing she once wrote to me in an e-mail that I have never forgotten, even if I lost the e-mail. I'm about to get a little personal here, so, be forewarned.
When she and I were dating, we found that when we laid together, her head fit perfectly in the crook of my left shoulder, pretty much like they were made to connect. This was all cute and grossed out our friends, but she once wrote me an e-mail when we were living in different cities, telling me that she loved how she "fits into the shoulder" of my life. Sweetheart, that's poetry. And she says she's not a good writer. P'shaw!
Around the same time, my sister wrote me an e-mail as well. It was about four years ago now, when I went to my first Weier Family Wedding (the second would be my own), up in Davenport, IA, where Kathy's brother Dave lives. The same weekend, my sister was heading to Memphis for a short vacation. When I got home after the weekend, she had sent me an e-mail about her trip, but all she talked about was how she felt on the drive down. "I realized I was heading due south at 80 miles an hour. I was traveling at 80 miles an hour away from the people I loved the most. And then I realized that you were on your way to Davenport, in the exact opposite direction, and I did the math and realized that if you were driving at 80 miles an hour, you and I were travelling away from each other at 160 miles an hour! And that's just too fast!" It just kindled something in me, this little spark of...I don't know what, but it made me call her on the spot. That is too fast to be travelling away from the ones you love. And I wondered then, and I still wonder now, if anybody else has ever thought of that situation like that.
What I am trying to say through layers of cheese and sniffles and "John! Martha!" sort of back-and-forth drivel, is that if I am surrounded by writers, you should probably take a look at the people in your life, and listen to what they say. Read what they write. Even people who aren't writers the way that I am a writer probably have something profound to say at some point, and they will most likely find some very unique way to say it. Cherish that. And, if you are a writer like me, poach it and use it in a story. And make sure you get it copyrighted.
I know there are a few of you out there in the Blogniverse (DOWN WITH THE BLOGOSPHERE!) that are patiently (and kindly) reading through this longer-than-War-and-Peace-styled post in the hopes that at the end I will ask for suggestions for this week's Free Write Friday. And I hate to disappoint you all.
But I think I will anyway, and instead of asking for them now, I'll ask for them tomorrow.
But, now that I think about it, that's no good, especially considering how late I've been blogging this week; I mean, it's almost 11, the day is almost up, I am almost out of time to get my Wednesday blog in. Plus, I don't usually blog on Thursdays.
Thursday was an Emo band.
It's also the day I can't ever seem to get a hang of. Thursdays. Hmm.
Alright, then. Suggest away for this week's Free Write Friday.
Generally, I was once again derisively called a "Liberal," this time because I was angry that even though I put a recycling bin in the break room at work specifically for soda cans (complete with signs directing people to deposit their cans in the bin rather than in the trash), I was angrily complaining about the fact that people had thrown their soda cans in the trash along with their half-eaten lunches...but I'll let the half eaten lunches rest for now...and so, yes, somebody in the break room decided that they would share their view that recycling is worthless, and that only tree hugging liberals cared about it. This person said he did not care about the environment enough to walk the two feet out of his way to put his diet coke can in the recycling.
An argument ensued, because I asked him if his parents (not him, but his parents, because this person is still young and probably still has his political ideologies running parallel to his parents') were Republicans. He said, "Yes. Aren't yours?" Then he added, "No, probably not, since you're like 22 and trying to recycle." First off, I'm 24. But I let that slide. He added again, derisively, that I am a "Liberal." Yes. I am politically Liberal, with a capital L. Environmentally conservative, though, with a lowercase c. He argued I couldn't be conservative at all, since Conservatives know that recycling is for, in his words, "cry-babies." I went out to the floor to get a dictionary.
I was disappointed to find that the majority of the definitions for conservative now deal with a capital C. I guess that's just what the word has come to mean, however, I checked the root word, conserve, which gave me a much better footing for my argument with this person. Conserving is, of course, saving. Now, political Conservatives want to save things like the status quo, and money for them that's got. They want to preserve family values and so forth. It is clear to me from the actions of certain people that political Conservatism has little to do with saving money for the good of the majority, or lives, or the planet on which we live (and by that I mean to natural portion of it, not just the lump of rock, which it appears is how some people see the Earth). Now, I am a conservative with a lowercase c, in that I would like to save money, and lives, and resources. So, yes, I recycle. And I liked that the definition of conservative did say that the root word was conserve, the definition of which has not been infiltrated by a capital C.
Now, let me get down off of my soap box and get to some good ol' fashioned elliotisnotawriter bloggin.
I am not a master of the off-the-cuff comment. Most of the time, I've got a heavy supply of "oh yeah?"s and "Your Mom!"s. But every once in a great while, I come up with something. My father has a problem with his jaw at the moment, and it's been a recurring problem for a few years. He has trouble opening his mouth all the way and eating hard foods, so a few years ago his doctor suggested that when it flares up (like it is doing now), he should put himself on a diet of soft foods. Foods, as the doctor said, "Like pie." So, it's dad's pie diet, as we like to call it. "Back on the pie diet?" "Yeah. It's pretty sweet." No pun intended, really, because remember that there is more than just fruit pies; there's things like chicken-pot pie and quiche is considered a pie. But, so, yes, he is back on his pie diet. And this evening, as we sat in the living room at my parents' house, keeping them company, he made a comment suggesting he had made a mistake several years in his past. "I'm not saying it was fair, but I obviously did something wrong." It was quiet for a second, and I said, "So, back on the pie diet. Tell me, how's that humble pie tasting?"
Score one for me. Of course, as creative as everybody seems to be in my family, I was soon outdone by my mother's lament. I was in the middle of telling the recycling story, when my mother croaked in a voice of desperation, "I just don't think I can take it." When questioned what it was she couldn't take, she responded, "There isn't any cake in the house."
My dad and I, in order to stop laughing so uncontrollably, went to the grocery store to buy cheese cake. Behold the power of words!
But it's not just me and my mother who can spontaneously compose something worthy of going into print; my father has been writing his life story for years, and just yesterday gave me a suggestion for free write Fridays (that I hope he posts on here so you can all see it, otherwise I'll look like an enormous tease). My wife, as you have seen, can come up with an idea that's unique and full of potential, but there is one thing she once wrote to me in an e-mail that I have never forgotten, even if I lost the e-mail. I'm about to get a little personal here, so, be forewarned.
When she and I were dating, we found that when we laid together, her head fit perfectly in the crook of my left shoulder, pretty much like they were made to connect. This was all cute and grossed out our friends, but she once wrote me an e-mail when we were living in different cities, telling me that she loved how she "fits into the shoulder" of my life. Sweetheart, that's poetry. And she says she's not a good writer. P'shaw!
Around the same time, my sister wrote me an e-mail as well. It was about four years ago now, when I went to my first Weier Family Wedding (the second would be my own), up in Davenport, IA, where Kathy's brother Dave lives. The same weekend, my sister was heading to Memphis for a short vacation. When I got home after the weekend, she had sent me an e-mail about her trip, but all she talked about was how she felt on the drive down. "I realized I was heading due south at 80 miles an hour. I was traveling at 80 miles an hour away from the people I loved the most. And then I realized that you were on your way to Davenport, in the exact opposite direction, and I did the math and realized that if you were driving at 80 miles an hour, you and I were travelling away from each other at 160 miles an hour! And that's just too fast!" It just kindled something in me, this little spark of...I don't know what, but it made me call her on the spot. That is too fast to be travelling away from the ones you love. And I wondered then, and I still wonder now, if anybody else has ever thought of that situation like that.
What I am trying to say through layers of cheese and sniffles and "John! Martha!" sort of back-and-forth drivel, is that if I am surrounded by writers, you should probably take a look at the people in your life, and listen to what they say. Read what they write. Even people who aren't writers the way that I am a writer probably have something profound to say at some point, and they will most likely find some very unique way to say it. Cherish that. And, if you are a writer like me, poach it and use it in a story. And make sure you get it copyrighted.
I know there are a few of you out there in the Blogniverse (DOWN WITH THE BLOGOSPHERE!) that are patiently (and kindly) reading through this longer-than-War-and-Peace-styled post in the hopes that at the end I will ask for suggestions for this week's Free Write Friday. And I hate to disappoint you all.
But I think I will anyway, and instead of asking for them now, I'll ask for them tomorrow.
But, now that I think about it, that's no good, especially considering how late I've been blogging this week; I mean, it's almost 11, the day is almost up, I am almost out of time to get my Wednesday blog in. Plus, I don't usually blog on Thursdays.
Thursday was an Emo band.
It's also the day I can't ever seem to get a hang of. Thursdays. Hmm.
Alright, then. Suggest away for this week's Free Write Friday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)